Ohtani, Ohtani's interpreter, $4.5M in gambling debts...and Pete Rose

[SeeingEyeDog]

Obviously, this is a developing story and...here's what I have:

1) Ohtani's interpreter, Ippei Mizuhara was fired by the LAD today after questions surrounding $4.5M in wire transfers from Ohtani's bank account to a bookmaking operation

2) Following today's game, the LAD announced that Ohtani would not be available to the media because (and I am not making this up...) they "have no interpreter".

3) Ohtani said that the debts were Mizuhara's but that he authorized the payments to the bookmaking operation directly because he was concerned if he paid Mizuhara directly he would "gamble it away"

4) No word yet about the specific nature of the debts however it should be noted that commercial, casino-style gaming in CA is prohibited

5) The FBI is engaged in investigating the situation 

Speculation and questions

1) Without any evidence, I submit the debts are Ohtani's and Mizuhara is a patsy here

2) If Ohtani has done no wrong here, why shield him from the media?

3) How do Ohtani's actions here frame to Pete Rose?

~Dawg

[dumbdumb]

go read rule 21 very carefully but also remember the commissioner can rule in other ways for the best interests of baseball.

pressure was put on Mantle for appearances at casino's years ago.

betting on football basketball etc equals no penalty.

betting on baseball is where the penalties start

other teams--1 year

your own team--you get what pete got.

there is a sign on all pro teams clubhouse throughout a milb or mlb players career with that rule 21 on gambling to look at every day, including during Pete's era. no excuses

[beerguy55]

12 hours ago, SeeingEyeDog said:

1) Without any evidence, I submit the debts are Ohtani's and Mizuhara is a patsy here

I would agree...that there's zero evidence.   You also don't have the full report...Ohtani's camp has claimed the money was stolen, so we need to see what flushes out.

Was the money really transferred without any of Ohtani's knowledge...or was his interpreter a go between for Ohtani's gambling...or something in between.

Above you note "Ohtani said"...no, Mizuhara said...part of the problem is interviewers and investigators were hearing what Ohtani "said" from Mizuhara as his translator.  I SUSPECT what happened was Ohtani's camp finally got wind (maybe via ESPN confirmation efforts) what Mizuhara was actually saying, and denied it.

The more cynical conclusion (and not necessarily wrong) is Ohtani's camp realized their first cut at explaining this was going to go over like a lead fart, so they changed course.

12 hours ago, SeeingEyeDog said:

2) If Ohtani has done no wrong here, why shield him from the media?

Assumes facts not in evidence, and even if an accurate portrayal it's a silly question.  First, maybe they don't have an interpreter...or more importantly, an interpreter Ohtani trusts?  Second, otherwise you're basically saying "if you've done nothing wrong you don't need a lawyer" or "if you have nothing to hide then let the cops search your car".    You know how those work out.

Yes, the Dodgers and Ohtani will need to show some transparency eventually, but at this point it's an official investigation and most people won't be able to say much anyway.

 

12 hours ago, SeeingEyeDog said:

3) How do Ohtani's actions here frame to Pete Rose?

They don't - there's no evidence here that any baseball gambling occurred, and in fact the statements by third parties categorically say there was none.  The issue is that sports betting is illegal in California.  And that is the only reason there was a debt to be paid...legal sports betting organizations require the money up front...illegal bookies typically take credit.

[The Man in Blue]

This was the most recent thread (outside of the Pat Hoberg threads), so I'm just going to drop this here.

F##k Rob Manfred.  This should have been done before he passed away.

https://www.nbcsports.com/mlb/news/report-robmanfred-considering-petition-to-have-pete-rose-posthumously-removed-from-ineligible-list

Report: Rob Manfred considering petition to have Pete Rose posthumously removed from ineligible list

Baseball Commissioner Rob Manfred is considering a petition to have Pete Rose posthumously removed from Major League Baseball’s ineligible list, according to a person familiar with the situation.

The person spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the conversations.

The reinstatement petition was filed by Jeffrey Lenkov, a Southern California lawyer who represented Rose prior to his death at age 83 in September.

[Replacematt]

11 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

This was the most recent thread (outside of the Pat Hoberg threads), so I'm just going to drop this here.

F##k Rob Manfred.  This should have been done before he passed away.

https://www.nbcsports.com/mlb/news/report-robmanfred-considering-petition-to-have-pete-rose-posthumously-removed-from-ineligible-list

Report: Rob Manfred considering petition to have Pete Rose posthumously removed from ineligible list

Baseball Commissioner Rob Manfred is considering a petition to have Pete Rose posthumously removed from Major League Baseball’s ineligible list, according to a person familiar with the situation.

The person spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the conversations.

The reinstatement petition was filed by Jeffrey Lenkov, a Southern California lawyer who represented Rose prior to his death at age 83 in September.

Absolutely F*#King not.

Facts:
1. Without Rule 21, MLB would not exist. It would have been abandoned in droves as people lost confidence in the validity of the contests.
2. As violations of Rule 21 have the potential to kill MLB, violations of it must be punished to the fullest extent available (in this case, rendering one ineligible to be involved with MLB.)
3. Rule 21 is known to all participants, to include Rose.
4. Rose deliberately and repeatedly violated Rule 21.
5. When confronted with the evidence, Rose agreed to be made permanently ineligible in exchange for facts to remain private.
6. Thus, not only did he bet on his own team, he did worse things that have not been made public.
7. As part of the deal, Rose could apply for reinstatement with conditions.
8. He not only did not comply with those conditions, he contradicted them.

Since he did things even beyond what got him banned, and he did not feel it was worth reinstatement to comply with the conditions to which he agreed, and he repeatedly lied and showed a lack of remorse about it, where is the mitigating argument to support reinstatement?
 

[RBIbaseball]

38 minutes ago, Replacematt said:

Absolutely F*#King not.

Facts:
1. Without Rule 21, MLB would not exist. It would have been abandoned in droves as people lost confidence in the validity of the contests.
2. As violations of Rule 21 have the potential to kill MLB, violations of it must be punished to the fullest extent available (in this case, rendering one ineligible to be involved with MLB.)
3. Rule 21 is known to all participants, to include Rose.
4. Rose deliberately and repeatedly violated Rule 21.
5. When confronted with the evidence, Rose agreed to be made permanently ineligible in exchange for facts to remain private.
6. Thus, not only did he bet on his own team, he did worse things that have not been made public.
7. As part of the deal, Rose could apply for reinstatement with conditions.
8. He not only did not comply with those conditions, he contradicted them.

Since he did things even beyond what got him banned, and he did not feel it was worth reinstatement to comply with the conditions to which he agreed, and he repeatedly lied and showed a lack of remorse about it, where is the mitigating argument to support reinstatement?
 

I mean we don't know what we don't know, as far as what they hid about the severity of his gambling. However, some of those conditions had nothing to do with baseball or gambling. MLB commish seemed to just be on a power trip just as much as wanting him to "be a better person". It was a carrot they intentionally made impossible to get and seemed willing to move how far it was dangling in front of his face.

 

That being said, I won't say whether I think he should be reinstated or not (cause I've always had mixed feelings), but I do agree that if MLB was going to clear his name they should have done it before he died... And definitely not a few months after. It's like the most disrespectful slap in the face with this timing... Just pissing on his grave. And to me is further evidence that the carrot they dangled was not in good faith.

[noumpere]

12 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

Rob Manfred.  This should have been done before he passed away.

 

I think he (Manfred) did.

[beerguy55]

14 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

This was the most recent thread (outside of the Pat Hoberg threads), so I'm just going to drop this here.

F##k Rob Manfred.  This should have been done before he passed away.

Meh - I think this was the unwritten intent all along - he wouldn't enter the HOF while he was alive.

He wouldn't be the first deserving HOFer to have the honor come posthumously.

 

But frankly, if they reinstate Rose MLB should, at the very least, if not first, be reinstating Buck Weaver, whose only crime was not being a snitch.   And I'd support Joe Jackson too, who likely only committed the same crime as Weaver.  (regardless of any HOF discussion)

[SeeingEyeDog]

In 1989, when he was 48 years old, allegations of gambling were reported about Pete Rose. He died last year at age 83. Math tells us he went on to live for 35 years AFTER the initial allegations surfaced. And of course, in the years that followed 1989, those allegations became facts.

America loves the underdog. America loves heroes. America loves second chances. Let's move from the Dowd Report (Rose's gambling) to the Mitchell Report (the history of use of illegal PEDs by MLB players) for a moment...does anyone remember Andy Pettitte? Sure you do...5 rings, 3 all-star selections, ALCS MVP, enshrinement in Monument Park and a host of other achievements. But, here's what you may have forgotten...Andy Pettitte was listed on the Mitchell Report. What did guys do back then when their names appeared on the Mitchell Report? They emphatically denied ever taking PEDs. "I didn't know what it was..." or "The team doctor/personal physician gave it to me..." or "I didn't know this PED was in this food or drink or other medicine that I was taking..." and so on...

Except Andy Pettitte...Andy Pettitte did what ANYONE is SUPPOSED to do when they do something wrong, no matter how big or how small. He owned it. He got up in front of the cameras and admitted to using PEDs. The Mitchell Report came out in 2007. Pettitte played until 2013. And guess what? Most people, even diehard baseball and or Yankee fans, have forgotten Pettitte's name was ever on the Mitchell Report.

Back to the Dowd Report...Pete Rose had THIRTY-FIVE years, TWELVE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED AND SEVENTY FIVE DAYS, in which he could have, like Pettitte, stood up in front of a camera and admitted that he gambled on baseball and that he gambled on teams he played on and teams he coached. Sure, he wrote it in his 2004 book "My Prison Without Bars" but, that is not the same as being up on camera. And I have no doubt, had he simply stood up there for 2 minutes and read a statement admitting his gambling...the process of reinstating him would have begun the next day and he would have been nominated and inducted in the next HOF cycle. Maybe they make him wait a year...regardless, he would be in the HOF.

Not only did Pete not get up and ever own what he did, he frequently doubled down that he "never bet on baseball" and treated the entire situation like a sham and he was being railroaded and this was a personal vendetta by MLB and then commissioner, Bart Giamatti and any number of other outrageous lies and fabrications. Pete's statistics more than qualify him for the HOF and it's shame he's not enshrined but, that was his choice so, cry me a river at this point about what Pete Rose or Pete Rose fans think he is entitled to. He had ample time to atone for what he did and he chose not to do that. I also believe that if he is ever enshrined that the text of his plaque should reflect his gambling on baseball.

~Dawg

[The Man in Blue]

@Replacematt -- I am not opposed to your stance.  My point is he is out . . . or he should have been put in when he was alive.  Since they didn't do it, why are we bothering to venture down this path?  (Yes, I understand somebody else filed the petition.)  One of the big criticisms of this whole thing was the egos involved (on both sides).  IMO, "OK, you're dead, we'll do it know" is the ULTIMATE ego trip and FU.

[ArchAngel72]

Well Giammati did essentially say Rose would never be in so long as he was alive

 

[SeeingEyeDog]

1 hour ago, ArchAngel72 said:

Well Giammati did essentially say Rose would never be in so long as he was alive

 

LOL...and HE'S been dead for 35 years and yet...here we are...

~Dawg

[Replacematt]

2 hours ago, RBIbaseball said:

I mean we don't know what we don't know, as far as what they hid about the severity of his gambling. 

There are only two reasonable conclusions, not mutually exclusive and perhaps actually overlapping, that can be made from not releasing that information:
1. Giamatti was trying to save Rose from further embarrassment (possible,) or
2. the information would have been devastating to MLB (more possible.)

If you go with #1, then the rest of the argument about trying to be on a power trip loses support. And if #2 is true, then any grace extended to Rose is a significant favor. To me, this is strong evidence as to the nature of what was not released, and aimed at preventing retroactive statistical actions and civil actions due to the outcomes of games played. Take that as you will.

2 hours ago, RBIbaseball said:

MLB commish seemed to just be on a power trip just as much as wanting him to "be a better person". It was a carrot they intentionally made impossible to get and seemed willing to move how far it was dangling in front of his face.

It was absolutely not impossible. It was quite simple, in fact. Disavow gambling, be contrite...and this carrot had not changed. And for this argument to have any validity, we would have to assume that not one, not two, but three commissioners were on power trips regarding this.

[beerguy55]

3 hours ago, SeeingEyeDog said:

Pete's statistics more than qualify him for the HOF and it's shame he's not enshrined but, that was his choice so, cry me a river at this point about what Pete Rose or Pete Rose fans think he is entitled to. He had ample time to atone for what he did and he chose not to do that. I also believe that if he is ever enshrined that the text of his plaque should reflect his gambling on baseball.

The biggest challenge for me is MLB and the HOF are two separate entities and should remain so.  

The HOF changed their rules of eligibility mere months before Rose was to go on the ballot for the first time, to take the decision out of the writers' hands (interesting enough - 50+ years before that the writers kept Joe Jackson out of the Hall without any formal instructions).   Not to mention that the writers have kept out Bonds and Clemens, two players who remain in good standing in MLB, and were never even suspended, let alone banned.

He should be eligible for the HOF regardless of his ban in MLB - the writers should have been able to choose themselves...and all along the veterans committees should have been able to choose...even if Rose remains forever on MLB's ban list.  Let the current HOF members decide if he belongs.

Ban him, put him in the Hall, and reference the ban on his plaque.

Treat PED users the same - especially those who used before 2004 (when PED's and other drugs were actually officially banned from MLB).

The fact that Gaylord Perry is in the Hall, who not only cheated, but wrote a book about it - while he was still playing - is the height of hypocrisy for this handwringing about Rose and the PED era.  

[Velho]

2 hours ago, Replacematt said:

Disavow gambling

Let's have MLB go first

[beerguy55]

11 minutes ago, Velho said:

Let's have MLB go first

Keep in mind that the only reason there was a Rose investigation in the first place is it was illegal gambling.  The vast majority of sports betting-based scandals have occurred in illegal gambling scenarios (eg. Black Sox, Boston College points shaving, etc, etc)

[Velho]

1 minute ago, beerguy55 said:

9 minutes ago, Velho said:

Let's have MLB go first

Keep in mind that the only reason there was a Rose investigation in the first place is it was illegal gambling.  The vast majority of sports betting-based scandals have occurred in illegal gambling scenarios (eg. Black Sox, Boston College points shaving, etc, etc)

Legalizing didn't change things though https://www.si.com/college-basketball/inside-the-gambling-ring-allegedly-linked-to-point-shaving-in-pro-and-college-basketball

 

MLB (and all sports) selling themselves to gambling is a joke.

 

[umpstu]

41 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

Keep in mind that the only reason there was a Rose investigation in the first place is it was illegal gambling.  The vast majority of sports betting-based scandals have occurred in illegal gambling scenarios (eg. Black Sox, Boston College points shaving, etc, etc)

Rose bet on baseball, including on teams he managed, and lied about it for years. I would imagine he was gambling on baseball games when he was a player and would deny that. And I would wager that he actually did bet on his teams to lose. Put in the wrong pitcher, make an error, etc. Maybe if he had come clean about all of it the MLB possibly may have removed the ban. Maybe not.

[Replacematt]

57 minutes ago, Velho said:

Let's have MLB go first

If MLB had a history of illegally betting on games and influencing results, then that would possibly mitigate the irrelevance of this comment and simply change it into a whataboutism.

[Replacematt]

47 minutes ago, Velho said:

Legalizing didn't change things though https://www.si.com/college-basketball/inside-the-gambling-ring-allegedly-linked-to-point-shaving-in-pro-and-college-basketball

 

MLB (and all sports) selling themselves to gambling is a joke.

 

This wouldn't have happened without illegal gambling. 

Legal gambling provides an avenue for reporting and reduces the influence that illegal actors can have on results.

[BLarson]

@beerguy55 Is spot on.

The HOF changed it's rules that players must be on the eligibility list.

Once MLB put Rose in the ineligibility list, he was never going to get in.

The HOF is a museum.
Let him, Bonds, and the others blackballed in, put them in their own wing, and put asterisks around their admission. 

[Velho]

42 minutes ago, Replacematt said:

1 hour ago, Velho said:

Let's have MLB go first

If MLB had a history of illegally betting on games and influencing results, then that would possibly mitigate the irrelevance of this comment and simply change it into a whataboutism.

You're the one that said he should "disavow gambling" to get back in MLB's good graces. If you meant (but didn't say something more nuanced) so be it. My point is the hypocrisy of MLB taking money from and endorsing gambling.

re Rose in HOF. I generally hate all HOF talk for these exact reasons. It's politics. And means even less than actual Politics.

I believe we should tell history as it was, warts and all. Rose is an unequivocally a HOF level player (as is Bonds and Clemens). Put them in and tell the story.

[Replacematt]

1 hour ago, Velho said:

You're the one that said he should "disavow gambling" to get back in MLB's good graces. If you meant (but didn't say something more nuanced) so be it. My point is the hypocrisy of MLB taking money from and endorsing gambling.

Like I said--neither relevant nor hypocritical. 

You seem to think the two things have anything in common (and even if they did, it still wouldn't be relevant.) They don't.

[ArchAngel72]

20 hours ago, SeeingEyeDog said:

LOL...and HE'S been dead for 35 years and yet...here we are...

~Dawg

 

Ah yes but did Angelo mean himself or Pete ?     (I tease)  😁

 

[beerguy55]

On 3/19/2025 at 2:39 PM, umpstu said:

Rose bet on baseball, including on teams he managed, and lied about it for years. I would imagine he was gambling on baseball games when he was a player and would deny that. And I would wager that he actually did bet on his teams to lose. Put in the wrong pitcher, make an error, etc. Maybe if he had come clean about all of it the MLB possibly may have removed the ban. Maybe not.

Not sure what this has to do with my statement about illegal gambling...all of Rose's gambling in the 80's was illegal.  Not just MLB-illegal...federal/state law illegal.

There's no evidence in the Dowd Report, or anywhere else, that Rose bet on the Reds to lose.  However, though Rose claimed to have bet on EVERY game, the evidence suggests that there were many times where Rose did NOT place a bet on his Reds team.   That, in itself, would indicate to other gamblers, and bookmakers, that Rose doubted the outcome of those games - it might even rise to insider information to things like the health or effectiveness of someone in the lineup. I suspect that every time Rose failed to wager on the Reds, the bookmakers shifted their lines noticeably.

There is no evidence that the Reds lost every single time he failed to bet, so it's unlikely he was pressured to influence those games negatively.

There is evidence that he bet while he was a player/manager during the 1986 season, though Rose claimed he only started betting after he became a full-time manager the following season. Some people, including Rose, feel betting as a player vs as a manager is an important distinction.  I do not.